MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Highberger, Lawrence City Commissioners Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner
From: Housing Trust Fund Board, Barbara Carswell, Chair
Subject: Housing Trust Fund Board Recommendations
Date: May 24, 2005
The Housing Trust Fund Board met on May 16, 2005 to review applications for funding and present a recommendation document to the Commission. The recommendations from the Board have been given to City staff to be forwarded to you. This memo is to outline the underlying discussion of the Board members and, in addition to the official minutes of the meeting, may serve to clarify our rationale as you make your final decisions about funding.
The stated purpose of the Housing Trust Fund is “to encourage and support the acquisition, rehabilitation and development of affordable housing and/or emergency shelter and supportive services necessary to maintain independent living with dignity in our community”. In reviewing the applications, we used evaluation criteria to review:
- whether the proposed project addressed low/moderate income populations; increased overall affordable housing or services; detailed a working budget; had measurable outcomes; complied with existing zoning; could still be feasible with less than 100% funding of request; and
- whether the agency requesting funding had the capacity to handle the project or program; had a proven history of similar project/programs; demonstrated collaboration of effort with other agencies/organizations.
In initiating the evaluation process, specific details within each application were discussed relative to evaluation criteria and to their relevancy to the purpose of the Housing Trust Fund. During the initial discussion period specific award amounts were not included in discussion. Questions and clarifications were encouraged. It was decided during this discussion period to zero-fund the application from Praise Temple Church as the Board felt unanimously that the application provided insufficient data to validate claims on the face page, and that the project described was a duplication of effective services already existing in Lawrence.
The following reflects comments about the other applications that arose during this initial stage.
Emergency Service Council: There was a strong consensus that this project addressed an existing need. There was unanimous approval for the simplicity of the project and its administration, and for the broad-based collaboration of social services agencies. It was felt that the funding request was a “soft” figure: that it represented an amount that did not necessarily fully address need, but would be effective until it ran out. Also, the amount per household was limited to $200 in a 12-month period, so did not improve affordability radically. It was considered a short-term supportive service, efficiently administered.
Lawrence Community Shelter: The proposal for purchase/development of an emergency shelter was very much “future tense”. A Board member suggested that the timing of the allocation of HTF funds disadvantaged this application. It was generally agreed that the primary thrust of the proposal was to escrow funds for several years until the LCS was better prepared to meet the identified need. The application said, “since the process of developing the new emergency shelter is just beginning, a grant from the HTF could be placed in a reserve or escrow fund restricted to future expenses of purchasing and constructing or renovation the building.” Board members had strong consensus that a need existed. They also agreed, however, that the proposal submitted was a general hypothesis and did not outline enough details of a plan to be effectively evaluated.
Lawrence Community Shelter: HMIS: Following the discussion of the previous application, board members felt that this proposal was a strong and necessary step in evaluating need and documenting use of services. Data collected would provide a broad base of data for effective decision making relative to homeless and housing needs. Board members strongly endorsed the collaborative nature of the project.
Lawrence/Douglas County Housing Authority: This was a well-documented application, addressing a population [elderly] where affordable housing need is increasing. The outline and planning of the project was strong. The land was already owned by LDCHA, and budget and financials demonstrated a strong ability to complete the project, even if not fully funded as requested.
Lawrence Habitat for Humanity: Board discussion noted that Habitat had an established success in Lawrence. It was hoped that Habitat would continue to look for in-fill sites, rather than congregate lower-income housing in a larger development [as was suggested as a possibility within the proposal], as this has been shown to attach stigmata to the housing units and can cause continuance of housing problems.
The Salvation Army: There was strong consensus that the needs of the population identified within this proposal were worthwhile addressing. It was noted that participation within the proposal relied on providing reduced risk to landlords, and so was somewhat conservative in the breadth of applicability. Discussion of the project included concern that the rules did not fully address the skills and abilities of this population. If funded, it was suggested that there should be good tracking and documentation of both success and failure in any consideration of future funding.
Tenants to Homeowners: There is general consensus that Community Land Trust is a good answer to affordable housing issues: it is not unanimous that Lawrence’s needs are best answered by this solution. The ability to keep equity growth with the property, and thereby reduce the income requirements of future owners, was weighed and balanced during discussion, by the question of whether low income, first time home owners should have the right to avail of full equity growth. Majority consensus felt that 25% equity growth to those who would not have been able to purchase without help, was fair. It was again suggested that good statistics on borrowers and the Community Land Trust growth be monitored for future funding requests.
Following discussion, the Board began the process of funding distribution.
In addition to Praise Temple Church, it was unanimously agreed that the Lawrence Community Shelter request for $400,000 for a shelter should be zero-funded as it simply moved funds from HTF to an escrow with thinly defined definitions for use.
It was felt that three applications, LDCHA, Habitat and TTH, presented clearly defined proposals that ranked high in all evaluation criteria and had the ability to effect projects that were strongly in line with the Housing Trust Fund purpose. It was felt that all three could be partially funded and still have meaningful impact. LDCHA would be able to fully complete the project proposed: Habitat and TTH would be able to proceed with the project to the extent that funding allowed. In both of these latter cases the Board felt that less that full completion of the project did not lessen the effectiveness of the proposal.
It was unanimously decided to fully fund the HMIS project. The outcome of this project would provide good return on investment relating to future housing and services data, and there was concern that less than full funding could diminish its efficacy.
Amounts awarded to Emergency Services Council and The Salvation Army were proportionally reduced from the requests, due to limitation of funding available. It was felt that these ranked lower in critical impact, although were worthy of funding at this level.
There was a unanimous vote from the Board to send these recommendations as outlined.
I would like to commend the Board members for their efforts. In allocation processes, any time that the amount available is less than the amount requested there could be wide variances of opinion. The Board reviewed and debated objectively, reflecting serious adherence to their responsibility to Lawrence and the community. As their Chair, I respectfully present our recommendations to you.